Is this negative severely underexposed or underdeveloped?

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It could be that they are optimizing for a different film that is a bit faster to develop, but most labs tend to standardize around Tri-X. With most places these days, volume is pretty low, so sometimes they wind up keeping their chemicals too long. You could also just ask them...if they are a decent lab, they will try to work with you or advise you what they recommend. The last thing is that it could be that you got an older or heat damaged batch of Tri-X, but I think that is unlikely and that usually manifests as fog rather than low activity. These just look like good old fashioned underdevelopment, though the first few images were indeed several stops underexposed... Another cause would be putting too many rolls of film in the processor for the volume of film. You generally are best off with at least 150mL of undiluted developer per roll, it is pretty easy to exceed that with a full tank of 35mm when developing at 1 to 1 or 1 to 3.

Edited May 25, 2021 by Stuart Richardson